Slashdot Mirror


Interview With MIT Subway Hacker Zack Anderson

longacre writes "In his most extensive interview since the DefCon controversy emerged, MIT subway hacker Zack Anderson talks with Popular Mechanics about what's wrong with the Charlie Card, what happened at DefCon, and what it's like to tango with the FBI and the MBTA. The interview comes on the heels of Tuesday's court ruling denying motions by the MBTA to issue a preliminary injunction aimed at keeping the students quiet for a further five months."

40 of 113 comments (clear)

  1. The battle by Adreno · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm really glad that the court decided to overturn the injunction. We need to get information like this out in the open, so we can solve these problems quickly and in an open-source manner. Simply denying that a problem such as this exists does not solve the problem... it delays a fix, and makes it even MORE likely that such exploitation will happen in the first place.

    1. Re:The battle by jellomizer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Unfortunately most peoples mind are stuck in the 20th century. And don't consider how quickly these things can spread now. Say 15 years ago this happened keeping it quite would have gave them a security advantage as it is easy to control the flow of information, so for someone else wanted to break in had to duplicate all the research again. However today once you try to silence someone the information flows faster, and it is harder to keep the information down, so when a problem is found it is best to fix it then put time in hushing it up. Sorry the world follows different dynamics now adapt or parish.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    2. Re:The battle by rbf2000 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Ironically, they made far more information publicly available than the MIT kids ever intended to present by including the security report in their motion. You think they would have sealed the document, or whatever the legal term is for hiding sensitive information like that.

    3. Re:The battle by SwordsmanLuke · · Score: 4, Funny

      adapt or parish.

      That's right! Change, or we're sending you to... church!

      --
      Any plan which depends on a fundamental change in human behavior is doomed from the start.
  2. Obligatory IANAL by blcamp · · Score: 4, Insightful

    US Constitution, Amendment I:

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

    Did I miss something here?

    Not that I want a security system compromised, because I don't... but the 1st Amendment doesn't say "Congress shall ... abridge free speech in instances where a subway system is hacked".

    --
    The problem with socialism is that they always run out of other people's money. - Margaret Thatcher
    1. Re:Obligatory IANAL by JohnnyKlunk · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think it's the interpretation
      the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

      They're not stopping anyone from assembling peaceably, and they're not stopping anyone from petitioning the government.
      If these kids tried to petition the government to fix the system and a law was passed to prevent them then this would be a violation. However the government is preventing a party from addressing the assembly on a sensitive issue. I don't beleive this is covered in the above

      Not saying I agree with stopping the presentation, but the right of free speech is really about petitioning the government over greivances, not saying whatever you want.

    2. Re:Obligatory IANAL by __aagmrb7289 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm sorry, but no way does this make any sense. Did you forget the frickin' OR? As in: "or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." You make no sense.

    3. Re:Obligatory IANAL by Ioldanach · · Score: 4, Informative

      Maybe this will help: Congress shall make no law (((respecting an establishment of religion) or (prohibiting the free exercise thereof)) or (abridging (the freedom (of speech) or (of the press)) or ((the right of the people peaceably to assemble) and (to petition the government for a redress of grievances)))). The alleged violation is "abridging (the freedom (of speech) or (of the press))". The assembly subclause is enclosed within a different area of the clause.

    4. Re:Obligatory IANAL by SirGarlon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not that I want a security system compromised, because I don't...

      The students didn't hack a security system. They hacked the toll-collection system of the subway turnstiles. The MBTA made some whiny noise about the hack being a security risk but evidently the judge didn't believe their argument.

      --
      [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
    5. Re:Obligatory IANAL by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not saying I agree with stopping the presentation, but the right of free speech is really about petitioning the government over greivances [sic], not saying whatever you want.

      No, the right of free speech is about speech alone not being a crime for which one can be punished, or a source of harm for which one can be made liable. It's fairly obvious that freedom of speech is separate from the right to petition; just look at where the semicolons were placed. The amendment is addressing three different rights:

      1. Freedom of religion
      2. Freedom of speech, including speech via the press
      3. Freedom of assembly for the purpose of petitioning the government for redress

      You wouldn't try to argue that freedom of religion is all about petitioning the government for redress, would you? The segment describing freedom of religion relates to the right of assembly in exactly the same way as the segment about freedom of speech.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    6. Re:Obligatory IANAL by xstonedogx · · Score: 2, Funny

      If only the Founding Fathers had known LISP!

    7. Re:Obligatory IANAL by Tetsujin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Read "The Hacker Crackdown." When you have the ability to cause a blackout to the phone system of an entire US region - you most definitely do NOT have the freedom of speech.

      And why not? Why shouldn't a student of security issues be able to discuss their findings about such a flaw with other security professionals? Why should someone, once they've gone to the trouble of investigating the situation and discovering such a flaw, be barred from legitimately profiting from that work? Just because it's inconvenient for the people who maintain the flawed system?

      It sounds like the talk the MIT students were going to give would have satisfied both sides: allowed the students to legitimately profit from their own hard work, while not giving the general public the information needed to circumvent the system.

      --
      Bow-ties are cool.
  3. The real question I want to know... by rahvin112 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Did the MBTA learn a lesson here about making a mountain out of a molehill? They essentially took something that would have received almost no attention and turned it into a national news story and then publicly filed all the details in open court such that anyone with the wherewithal to defraud the MBTA now not only knew about the exploit but had the full details on how to do it.

    1. Re:The real question I want to know... by ParanoiaBOTS · · Score: 2, Informative

      Did the MBTA learn a lesson here about making a mountain out of a molehill? They essentially took something that would have received almost no attention and turned it into a national news story and then publicly filed all the details in open court such that anyone with the wherewithal to defraud the MBTA now not only knew about the exploit but had the full details on how to do it.

      I doubt they learned anything. If I have noticed one thing about cases like this its that they always seem to make the same mistakes. It's really just a matter (again) of people addressing the symptom, not the problem.

    2. Re:The real question I want to know... by gad_zuki! · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So? They *might* be exposing themselves to a higher frequency of short-term compromise but frankly the people with the know-how to do this and the equipment and the will dont exist in vast numbers.

      The worst thing they could have done is 'play it cool' and downplay this. This would only encourage people to continue compromising their cards and give the MBTA little incentive to get off its collective ass.

      As it stands now, this is so publicized that every transit organization around the world is freaking out about its level of encryption. This will have some pretty positive long-term consequences.

      Im glad they didnt play it cool. The Streisand effect sometimes has unintended positive consequences.

  4. the more I read about this.... by BitterOldGUy · · Score: 2, Interesting
    It's sounds more and more like the MBTA is just trying to cover up their mistake. This has nothing to do with public safety or stealing rides on the transit system.

    Especially this part:

    They're filing a lawsuit right now, basically, and nobody's in court for usâ"just MBTA lawyersâ"and we don't fully know what's going on.

    Interesting. So, no one at MIT was served or anything. The MBTA just shows up in court to tell their story and theirs alone? And asks for an injunction?

    At least they didn't go nuts like the time with the light brites under the bridges.

    1. Re:the more I read about this.... by MRe_nl · · Score: 3, Interesting

      the more it just seems someone at MBTA mistook their (MIT's)vulnerabilities rapport for the
      scheduled Defcon talk that Friday and panicked.
      quote/
      "The FBI agent said, basically, this is not going to be an investigation. We don't have anything here. Don't worry about it.

      So we told them we'd provide them a vulnerability report, going over what we found, and also methods that could fix these problems, and they said we could get that to them within two weeks. We had actually planned on getting it to them within the week, before business hours ended on Friday, so they'd have this in their hands before we gave the talk. We felt this was a courtesy we should give them.

      This report was not going over what we were speaking about at DefCon, that wasn't the point. Some other people at MBTA have claimed that it was, but the point of the report was to go over the vulnerabilities, and go over ways that they could fix them. That's what we provided them, and we got it to them that Friday."
      end quote/

      and that's where it went wrong I think.
      Had that report arrived monday nothing might have happened.

      --
      "Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
  5. Stored value cards are foolish by kriston · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Stored value cards are foolish.
    They should only ever be used for identification and authentication.
    The value being managed must always be stored and administered on the billing system itself.

    This is why the responsible agencies (EZ-Pass, WMATA DC Metro, NYC Metrocard) should not, and usually do not, use stored value cards.

    How naive of the MBTA to do this.

    Cloning is still a problem with DC Metro and NYC Metrocard, but this is relatively easy to detect using database analysis and trending.

    The security should lie with the central system.
    Stored value cards are never secure--especially if you're depending on the obsolete version of MiFare Classic which should have only ever been used for authentication (serial numbers, keys, and scanned fingerprints).

    Never for a so-called "digital purse" like MBTA used it for.

    --

    Kriston

    1. Re:Stored value cards are foolish by schwaang · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Stored value cards are foolish.
      They should only ever be used for identification and authentication.
      The value being managed must always be stored and administered on the billing system itself.

      OK, but if you have RFID and a weak key, an id/auth-only system still has the problem where you can effectively copy someone's card with an antenna, and then use it until $0. You just can't refill it for free as in the stored value case.

      I haven't thought about this much, but while the auth/central billing approach seems more secure (if you fix the key problem), it's got a single point of failure that brings down your entire transit system, where the lower security value-store approach does not. Maybe in the real world that's not a big deal, I don't know.

    2. Re:Stored value cards are foolish by flink · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Stored value cards are foolish.
      They should only ever be used for identification and authentication.
      The value being managed must always be stored and administered on the billing system itself.

      A system that must communicate with a central database isn't very useful for:
        * buses
        * trolleys
        * the commuter rail

      Where a network connection isn't necessarily available as the reader must reside on the vehicle itself.

      I'd be interested to hear how the other cities who don't use stored value cards solve this problem.

    3. Re:Stored value cards are foolish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'd be interested to hear how the other cities who don't use stored value cards solve this problem.
      They kindly request the sheeple to use dollar bills, and/or money coins. It's amazing technology.

    4. Re:Stored value cards are foolish by kriston · · Score: 2, Informative

      You may have read my comment already but there is an advisory value stored on the card but it's not the authoritative record of the balance. As with the Oyster Card "hacks" in London the cards can be turned off within one day. The central billing system analyzes trending and riders are accepted into the vehicle based on the balance on the card. If that balance doesn't match with the central database the card is turned off within hours. Same happens with cloned cards which can be detected the same way even more quickly as cards are used in impossible locations at impossible time intervals. The vehicle acceptance systems use store-and-forward wireless systems--remember, all the vehicles have onboard radios which will work several times per hour even on routes with the poorest coverage.

      --

      Kriston

  6. The FBI's role by MikeRT · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The FBI's role should have been to offer him and his buddies a lab, security clearance and a plush job to do this kind of work for them. Seriously, these are the kind of guys that the cops want working for them because every security hole in the infrastructure they find helps the cops do their job--and these guys are smart and educated enough to help the vendor fix the problem.

  7. no, not really by Reality+Master+201 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Grow up - your free speech rights aren't absolute.

    There's the classic example of shouting fire in a crowded theater, for example. There's various laws against disclosing all kinds of information - medical records (go to a hospital, and you'll find signs in the elevators reminding staff to be careful when discussing patients), state secrets, etc.

    And that's not getting into the realm of lawsuits. I mean, I could go on for hours about how you molest your children while smoking crack, but you can sue me for libel and I'll lose if I can't back up my claims. If you sign an NDA and then announce a press conference to disclose stuff covered under that NDA, I can get an injunction against you to prevent your holding that press conference.

    In this case, the folks running the subway got an injunction to prevent the disclosure of the hack. And a judge looked at the evidence and decided that they didn't deserve a permanent injunction.

    1. Re:no, not really by Hoplite3 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Yes, the old fire in the theater line... That's from the Holmes ruling in the Schenck case. Schenck was posting fliers bashing the draft for WWI and got swept up and jailed by the police. Holmes wrote for the Supreme Court majority that such speech was equivalent to shouting fire in a theater and Schenck (continued) his time in jail.

      Remember kids: every time someone uses this line to define the limits on free speech, they are hearkening back to rulings that undercut the very purpose of the 1st amendment.

      --
      Use the Firehose to mod down Second Life stories!
    2. Re:no, not really by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 4, Informative

      Very interesting. Further reference:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States

  8. You did miss something. by stomv · · Score: 4, Informative

    The US has tons of limits on free speech, including but not limited to restrictions with respect to
      * perjury
      * profanity
      * sealed courtroom/trial
      * threats
      * slander and libel
      * classified information
      * treason

    1. Re:You did miss something. by russotto · · Score: 4, Informative

      The US has tons of limits on free speech, including but not limited to restrictions with respect to
          * perjury

      But no prior restraint here.

      * profanity

      Most such restrictions get shot down in court; if it's about profanity in particular, they fall afoul not only of freedom of speech but of religion as well.

      * threats
      * slander and libel

      Again, no prior restraint here. And what constitutes a threat is reasonably narrowly defined, though prosecutors are always trying to stretch it

      * classified information

      You have, perhaps, heard of the Pentagon Papers case? Where the Washington Post and the New York Times could not be enjoined from publishing classified information?

      * treason

      It's awfully hard to commit treason with public speech. Laws against sedition, on the other hand, have a long history of violating freedom of speech.

    2. Re:You did miss something. by lysergic.acid · · Score: 2, Funny

      you forgot the biggest one:

      no talking in the library!

    3. Re:You did miss something. by pbaer · · Score: 2, Informative

      You also forgot: *copyright

      --
      There are 11 types of people, those who know unary and those who don't.
    4. Re:You did miss something. by iminplaya · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Although what the Rosenbergs did was more spying than public speech, if atom bomb details had been published in the NYT they still would have gotten the death penalty, and again properly so. It was treason.

      Citation needed. The Rosenbergs were railroaded*. They weren't even charged with, or convicted of treason. And furthermore, the case shows why we should not allow grand jury testimony to be withheld from the public.

      *During the trial the prosecutor announced in a national news conference that he had secured sworn affidavits from an old friend of the Rosenbergs's, William Perl, which conclusively proved the conspiracy. Saypol decided against putting Perl on the stand, however, when Perl admitted to lying in his affidavits.

      --
      What?
  9. remember kids by Reality+Master+201 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Remember kids: every time someone uses this line to define the limits on free speech, they are hearkening back to rulings that undercut the very purpose of the 1st amendment.

    Every time someone picks a single item from among several used to make a point and rests their entire argument on it, you should be skeptical.

    I noticed that you didn't mention the more applicable end of things, i.e., courts enjoining speech pursuant to a lawsuit, of the larger issue that free speech rights aren't absolute in the US, and never have been.

    Also, Schenck vs. US was a bad decision, and fairly un-American in my view. But what Holmes said "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic," is fundamentally reasonable, even if that justification wasn't appropriate to the case.

    1. Re:remember kids by fuzznutz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic," is fundamentally reasonable, even if that justification wasn't appropriate to the case.

      The keyword there is FALSELY. It is not "illegal" to shout fire in a theater. In fact, I would hope that someone would do just that in the event of a fire. The key issue of the MIT students is prior restraint of free speech simply because a party doesn't like what they believe they might hear.

    2. Re:remember kids by guibaby · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The "shouting fire is a theater" thing is not a Free Speech issue. You have every right to yell fire in a crowded theater. Especially if there is a fire. What you will get in trouble for is the results of your speech. Free speech is and should be absolute. But; you are responsible for the results of your speech and you always have been.

      Courts enjoining speech in a lawsuit or criminal case: This is not a law against free speech (as in congress shall make no law.) It is a judge doing his job in a specific instance to ensure a fair trial.

      An NDA is a contractual obligation. Again this is not a law against free speech.

      Laws against disclosure (medical records and such) again do not violate the "Congress shall make no law" because they apply to commercial entities which are not protected by the constitution. The constitution applies to people. Yes, I know, some judges have ruled as if corporation are "persons." It is very convenient sometimes to think that way, but it is not a constitutional matter.

      Libel and Slander are also not limitations on speech. If you are sued for one of those things you are being sued for the damage that you did to that person not the speech itself.

      Any abridgment you can come up with a reason for is either bad law, bad application of law or not an abridgment.

      ANY law that restricts the speech of an individual is unconstitutional by definition.

      --
      Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels.
  10. MBNA != MBTA by SirGarlon · · Score: 4, Informative

    You seem to be confusing the bank, MBNA, with the Boston transit authority, MBTA. Hacking MBNA would almost certainly be a felony. Hacking the MBTA is not even definitely illegal if you don't actually ride a train without paying. That what all this is about.

    --
    [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
  11. What it's like to tango with the MBTA by knifeyspooney · · Score: 5, Funny

    Having lived in Boston for five years, I don't need to RTFA to know what that was like.

    -They arrived at court 45 minutes late without apologizing to the judge
    -During oral arguments, the MBTA's attorney paused several times, each time for 5-10 minutes, for no apparent reason
    -MBTA officials wore blazers acquired off the rack for $9,000 apiece; no immediate plans to purchase pants
    -Despite earning one of the highest wages in the industry, the attorney was surly and lazy

    And, after the judge denied the MBTA's request for an injunction against the hacker, GM Dan Grabauskas issued a press release trumping the agency's legal victory.

  12. What now? by SeeSp0tRun · · Score: 2, Informative

    The MBTA has the information, but lets look at this for a moment. The fares in Boston went up roughly $.50 last year on the subway alone, with upwards of $2 on the rail system. This was mainly done to pay for the current Charlie Card system, as well as perform some additional maintenance and renovations in various stations. So after basically overhauling their token system, for a hefty price no less, they are going to spend how much extra for new data storage on fares? Not to mention the people that they will have to hire in order to sort through everything, and apprehend violators in the underbellies of Boston, or New York, or anywhere with a subway.

    I just don't see this going past "We sure showed those MIT kids what was what..." in the board room.
    I use the system at least twice a week, and not even the physical securities have changed since the report was originally filed.

    --
    Something witty.
  13. The moon rules! by Tetsujin · · Score: 2, Insightful

    1-31-07 Never Forget

    Damn right...

    I like Boston but sometimes I feel like there's some kind of epidemic here that causes people to react to problems in the most brain-dead, paranoid methods possible...

    --
    Bow-ties are cool.
  14. Wrong interview by Skapare · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This is the wrong interview. What we should have is an interview with top management to find out why they made bad decisions to go with an insecure system. Maybe their excuse is they were not aware of a nearby school with highly qualified consultants to help them in a quest to get a very secure system.

    --
    now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
  15. Prof Rivest by bugs2squash · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It had to help the students that Rivest was their professor. At least his reputation in the security world goes before him.

    It it were a lesser name in the field would their claim to have been studying the security of the system been taken so seriously ?

    If it had been just some guy in charge of Mississippi state university's computer science curriculum they would likely all be in jail by now.

    --
    Nullius in verba